Do you support a 'gas-guzzler' tax?

[nickshepDEM]

Would you support a 3% state administered tax on new, non commercial, non industrial autos that average less than 25 mpg?

Just an example of how the tax would work...

Allocating the proceeds of such a tax in the following manner:

60%: To research and development of cleaner, renewable fuel sources

30%: To public transportation funding

5%: To home heating oil aid for the elderly and poor

5%: To road repair and construction

A friend of mine (Mitty) asked this question at another forum. I thought it would be a good topic for DU.

[PDJane]

1. Yes.

There are indications that peak oil either has been reached or will be reached within the next year. That's a dangerous benchmark, and our current world depends on finding a clean and renewable source asap.

[Hubris Heaver]

2. I'd support a tax

that made gaz guzzling soccer mom suv's and wanna be tough guy hummers onerous - like 50% or more. Some of us need large vehicles for our jobs- but the average suv owner doesn't need a big gas guzzler AND gets an underserved tax break.

[catnhatnh]

3. No

Regressive...

[FSogol]

5. Regressive? The tax is only on new cars.

The poor typically drive older cars.

[Democrats_win]

7. Didn´t they do this on cars that pollute?

I remember seeing a new GM Firebird for sale and it had an extra tax because it didn´t meet EPA standards. This hot car was really expensive! Given that these cars are no longer produced, it did have the effect of getting them off the road. So maybe it really isn´t regressive if people buy economic cars. We just need to make sure that cars for larger families aren´t taxed or they should get a refund.

[Democrats_win]

4. Good idea. As price drops this idea is even better.

They´re going to drive the price up again eventually so why should I pay more for their foolishness?

[Ignacio Upton]

6. Good luck trying to get suburban voters to support it

Things will have to get worse before you find SUV drivers will to support any bill such as this one.

[TheFarseer]

33. Yeah, this goes under the category

"Good ideas that will never happen" This idea, as part of a political platform, would not be good.

[AZBlue]

8. I think it's a fantastic idea!!!

[Kelvin Mace]

9. As long as the tax money

goes to alternative energy research.

[Xithras]

10. The problem is "non-commercial".

Most cities will issue a business license to anyone with a pulse and $20. What's to stop people from getting one of these and re-registering the guzzler as a business vehicle? How can you block that without penalizing businesses that have a legitimate need for these kinds of vehicles?

[trogdor]

35. The IRS gives you three years to make a profit.

Monster fuck-you mobiles driven by real-estate ladies usually aren't "expensed". They're depreciated.

[Broken_Hero]

11. Sure...

but i would drop the miles per gallon to 20 and less....and give breaks to people who use big trucks/vehicles for business, like contractors work trucks and what nots....I have a gas guzzler myself, its an old gmc 89 van...but i use it maybe once a week to do local crap, shopping and what not and for work(sometimes, i'm a sub teacher)...i like the idea of having the tax on new vehicles and what not, cause of this last years gas prices aka gouging, we need to look at all alternatives...this one you posted is an alternative, with pluses/cons, but its something to talk about...

[sybylla]

12. 25 mpg where?

City, Hwy, Combined? Why 25? :shrug:

I don't necessarily have a problem with taxing "gas guzzlers" but with how you define gas guzzlers.

My dad drives a 3/4 ton diesel pickup for his business that gets about 19 on the hwy unloaded and about 12 towing my dad's equipment. It wouldn't likely qualify as "commercial" as it was bought off a regular dealer's lot, not a commercial truck lot.

Everyone who owns a pickup truck would pay a gas guzzler tax under your plan, unless you are limiting this to non-pickup truck vehicles.

And at that, my 2002 mid-sized car was labeled 24 mpg city, 29 hwy and at best gets 22/26. Would I have had to pay the tax according to your rules? And is 25 mpg in the city really a gas guzzler? Not many models out there that do much better and most SUV's are lucky to get 20 mpg on the hwy.

If you start taxing at 24 mpg, new car sales will plummet until manufacturers do better. Now if you graduated your tax over five years to 24mpg, I could buy that.

[bnr65432]

13. i'd support it, but it should only be 1%

or should start at 1% and then be raised slightly each year until it is 3%

[mtnester]

14. Not really fair to our small business, which requires a larger vehicle

and lots of miles on the road. Driving one with gas at high prices per gallon, is punishment enough, I believe.

[freestyle]

15. There already is one. The question is where to draw the line.

I thing now it is around 18MPG, and there is the huge light truck loophole that SUV's barrel through. The better solution is increasing the fuel economy standard. Also, unless the gas guzzler tax goes to development of better technology, or public transportation, then it is just another tax.

[Lefty48197]

16. Only with exceptions

I work in the construction industry. A large percentage of the trade workers need a pickup truck to haul their tools/materials. Even my new Ford Ranger only gets 22 MPG. I also know that a lot of construction workers travel long distances to get to work.
Not providing an exception for these workers would ream them good. With a government like that, they don't need a government.
I also know that farmers rely on pickup trucks too. I'm sure there are many other tradeworkers, and self-employed people who would get cornholed by this law too. Through no fault of their own, their chosen profession requires the use of trucks.
Any new law should target those that use low mileage vehicles on a regular basis, when they could choose a higher mileage vehicle. Many people don't have any choice, except to own a pickup truck, even the full sized variety.

[doc03]

17. No, I have a Ford Ranger that gets 22 miles a gallon

that's about the smallest vehicle you can buy that will pull even a small bass boat. You automatically pay more tax since you use more gas and it is taxed by the gallon. Even the huge SUV's aren't really gas hogs compared with a few years ago. Those vehicles only got 8-10 MPG on the highway then and now even the largest ones are getting 18 MPG.

[trogdor]

36. 18 MPG on the freeway driving 60 MPH with the cruise control on.

When was the last time you saw someone driving like that?

[Mountainman]

18. You can own a gas guzzler and burn less gas than someone who owns a

car with better mileage.

It is not the mpg of your car that matters but how much gas you consume. My truck gets 18 mpg but I buy about 1/2 tank a week. Someone else gets 40 mpg but fills up every other day. Who burns more gas? Not me.

Of you want to punish someone for burning a lot of gas, just raise the tax on everyone. Those who burn more gas will pay more. It is that simple.

It is just stupid to want to punish someone for what they drive. It is a form of reverse elitism to want SUV owners to pay more tax.

[trogdor]

37. So you bought an SUV to look pretty in the garage.

And drive it to church on Sunday and that's it. Raises the question, what do you need it for?

Big deal. You should still pay up.

[0007]

19. Absolutely! No doubt about it........

[GreenInNC]

20. and....

get rid of the tax deduction for extra heavy cars that bozos are saying they use for business.

[win_in_06]

21. Similar to a Luxury Tax. Wouldn't work.

We used to have luxury tax on vehicles or boat over 50K I think. What happened was the buyers somehow found a way to get the vehicles they wanted (foreign purchase, etc) and avoid the tax, but the result was a lack of demand for domestic vehcles.

Led to a lot of middle class people losing jobs.

[Mountainman]

22. Please, don't bother DUers with facts. Just let them hate SUV owners

[TexasLefty]

24. You're exactly right

I'm no advocate for tax cuts for the rich, but when it comes to people ragging the rich for their toys, they should realize that many, many poor and middle-class workers' livings depend on those toys. Yachts, boats, cars, ATVs, SUVs, golf carts, jet skis, etc. are generally made by hardworking lower-middle-class people. If taxing the rich more means a drop in the number of "toys" produced, it's definitely no good for these people.

I'm not saying we shouldn't tax the rich -- there's plenty of evidence out there that supports raising those. But going after their "toys" to "hit them where it hurts" is more spiteful than helpful.

[win_in_06]

26. And they'll get their toys anyway, and avoid the tax.

[TexasLefty]

23. No, it's too broad for the focused problem you mention

For example, I drive a 2005 Chevrolet TrailBlazer that gets about 16 city/22 highway. Our other car is a 1999 Chevrolet Malibu that gets about 23 city/27 highway.

However, we have consciously chosen to live in a house that is within 10 minutes of our respective offices. We enjoy the SUV for hauling things like trees and shrubs for our landscaping projects, etc. Still, we use far less gas than the people out in the exurbs who commute in an Honda Civic an hour each way, while their housewives cruise around in a Ford Excursion.

Just tax the gas more if you want to fund worthwhile projects. One option would be to provide writeoffs for contractors and other workers who use the vehicle in their day-to-day job. Any tax on gasoline, however, is hard to get right, especially with such a write-off, because it is such a "necessity." And, as a consumable, it's hard to track who is using it the most without getting into a Big Brother situation.

[dogman]

25. There is a gas-guzzler tax on autos. EOM

[TheCentepedeShoes]

27. No, too much room

for $$$ to go astray. And I don't think people should be punished for their legal choices. You want a Hummer, you have to fill up more often. My Buick gets about 13 pitiful MPG in town, but with the normal back and forth to work and the grocery, I can fill up about every 2 weeks. But,I'm lucky that I have some good book and clothes shopping in the neighborhood and can avoid trips to the mall. And it helped that Mr 'pede traded his guzzler for a moped.

[handmaidjah]

28. Gas Guzzler Tax

I would support a 10-20 percent penalty on the companies who continue to manufacture gas guzzlers, creating the catastrophe that GM has engineered, literally.

The VAT, luxury tax for items over $30,000 should also be reimplemented, to encourage the refitting of factories to build smaller flexcars. Brazil is having GREAT success with their cane/ethanol program. They are cleaner burning, the fuel is 1/2 the cost of petroleum. Their methods of refining DO NOT cost more than the ethanol is worth. Bagasse, the leftovers after cane processing can be used to power the plants. And please don't say Brazil is a small country. They have 185 million people-larger than most other industrialized countries in the world.

Cane can be Genetically modified (we're not going to eat it...) for a shorter growing period-then Iowa, ADM and the corn growers can convert to cane. They'll get their cut. I'd like to see MORE plants go up in Louisiana and Mississippi. (I LIVE here, so don't dump on me for being honest) It's already one of the most polluted areas in America. Revive the cane industry, we already build most of the new auto plants down here for the labor costs. It would also help rebuild our region without so much stress on the other states. The car/Petro thing HAS to change. And since we Looooove our cars in America, I guess it needs to be the petro thing that has to change.

Additional taxes for people who can afford Escalades, Navigators and Expeditions will not deter them from purchasing the vehicle

[newyawker99]

31. Hi handmaidjah!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[doc03]

29. 25 MPG average a gas guzzler? My truck gets 22MPG

highway but I drive it less than 10000 miles a year. Another person has a car that gets 30 MPG and drives 15000 miles and guzzles more gas than me. Besides you pay more tax the more gas you use anyway since it is taxed by the gallon. What do you want we all drive the same car like the Yugo!

[Blue_Tires]

30. and unlike the federal fuel consumption tax

this one should apply to SUV's

[AngryAmish]

32. I support the tax but an objection

I HATE "targeted" taxes. Here in Illinois the reason a lottery was allowed was that the supporters say all the proceeds go to education. Well, big deal. They just cut education funding from other sources by the amount that came in from the lottery.

If we want to fund things we should. This targeting stuff is just a politicians cheap trick.

Also I dread the idea of a huge amount of taxes being thrown at research of cleaner, renewable fuels. Not because cleaner, renewable fuels is a bad idea because it is a good idea. However the money would just be thrown at Boeing , halliburton etc. who already know how to pull the maximum graft out of the government. And they won't produce crap.

Tax is a great idea tho.

[trogdor]

34. Only 3%?

It should be progressive, increasing exponentially with engine displacement. You really need a vehicle like that for something other than pulling a big-ass boat (which should also be taxed to near-death), RV (ditto times ten), trailer full of snowmobiles, or other nonessential symbol of "I got mine, so fuck you" on wheels? The tax would (and should) probably be deductible at the end of the year as a business expense. Otherwise, you want to pollute the air, support terrorism, and whatever else results from wasting gas, pay up.

[texanshatingbush]

38. No, increase tax on fuel.

Increasing tax on fuel accomplishes the same thing with much more simplicity. I don't care if "Chad" buys a Hummer to park in the drive, but he's going pay if he wants to put fuel in it. Also consider, the typical 18 wheeler creates as much road wear as 3000 cars, shouldn't they share in the cost.

[hippiegranny]

39. Possibly.

I would not want it to impact those who need a large vehicle to make a living. But for personal use so soccer moms can drive down the block for a loaf of bread - absolutely.

[McLuhan]

40. No,

I drive a Suburban and I can afford the gas for it. When I fill up, I pay my share of tax on the gasoline. Please, no comments about how I suffer from some inferiority complex! :>)Peace be with you.

[kwolf68]

41. Makes economic sense

Since these gas guzzlers do a far greater damage to the environment and our ability to live in a sustainable way, then they should be made to pay for the externalities that their usage costs.

This is essentially the backbone of “right-wing” economics. Labor and the environment is exploited and then the general populace is taxed to clean up pollution, pay for underpaid workers health care, etc. Both of which are factors of production that should be figured into the cost of the product and thus paid by the consumer.

Of course, internalizing costs doesn’t behoove the agenda of the corporate profiteers. If products were higher (their true costs) then that which is most wasteful (gas guzzlers) would be less demanded. People could still buy what they wanted, no “freedom” would be suppressed, its just now the only individual privy to the transaction would actually BE the producer and the consumer, NOT society.

Higher cost products would also create a more innovative and frugal culture as well.

[ChipperbackDemocrat]

42. In addition to a Gus Guzzler Tax, Lets also consider this.

Strategic Material Defense Selective Service Act of 2007

BE IT ENACTED: The formation of the United States Strategic Material Defense Selective Service System.

Every American with a driver license and a vehicle registered in the USA will be a part of this system and this process.

Your right to purchase and consume fossil fuels will be dependent on service to our nation's efforts to secure reliable access to petroleum.

All Americans with a driver license and vehicle registered between the ages of 18 and 45 will be subjected to mandatory military service in the U.S. Armed Forces if they wish to maintain their vehicle registrations and access to the purchase of petroleum fuels for said vehicles. In exchange for serving an 18 month tour of duty in which no less than 12 months of that tour will be spent in a defined combat theatre, the conscript will be allowed by law to maintain a vehicle registration and the right to purchase petroleum for use in motor vehicles, providing the means to pay for said fuel, for a period of 6 years for each tour of duty manned.

All Americans between 18 and 45, with a driver's license who register a hybrid vehicle that still use a form of petroleum power will serve a tour of duty 18 months in which no more than 6 months will be spend in a defined combat theatre. Also, said conscript who falls under this criterion is exempted from any form of stop-loss action or postponement of the end of their tour of duty committment.

All Americans between the ages of 45 and 64, with a driver's license and a vehicle registered will serve a tour of duty of 18 months in a non-combat operation either in or out of theatre depending on need.

All Americans aged 65 or older with a driver's license and a vehicle registered will serve a 12-month tour of duty in non-combat operations at installations within the borders of the United States of America, its commonwealths and/or territories thereof.

All Americans with a driver license who register a vehicle that uses no petroleum or choses not to register a petroleum-powered vehicle will be exempted from this Selective Service as long as they chose not to register a petroleum-powered vehicle.

Any Selective Service-eligible American who does not register their car and is caught operating a petroleum powered vehicle and/or purchasing petroleum fuels without said registration will be considered in violation of Selective Service statues and will face penalities for the same.

Are you willing to pay the REAL price of fueling your car?

[AntiCoup2K4]

43. Some of us don't have the option of small cars, unfortunately

I'd be more than happy to drive something that gets 50 MPG. But I'm 6'6", and that unfortunately doesn't leave many options. Fuel economy doesn't help if you can't actually drive the thing.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

44. non commercial, non industrial autos that average less than 25 mpg?

Non industrial meaning it doesn't apply to vehicles used in production?

What is non-commercial? Big rig trucks?

I'd support the tax depending on the details.

Jimmy Carter tried to encourage alternative fuels and more gas efficiency. That was like 30 years ago.

So we need to get serious about this thing.

Or ignore the problem, and allow our industry, transportation, and foreign policy to be like the proverbial candle in the wind. The wind coming from the whims of oil producers and refiners, and/or natural disasters, and ultimately the supply of oil that remains on the planet.

If nothing else they should use the tax for development of alternative fuels and more gas efficiency.